Planning Scotland's Seas: 2013 - The Scottish Marine Protected Area Project – Developing the Evidence Base for Impact Assessments and the Sustainability Appraisal Final Report - Appendix E - Marine Site Reports

This is Appendix E for the pMPA Impact and Sustainability Report containing the detailed site by site reports. Published separately due to size.


North-east Faroe-Shetland Channel ( NEF)

Site Area (km 2): 26,807

Site Summary

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Protected Features, Data Confidence and Conservation Objectives [ NEF]
Proposed protected features
Biodiversity Features
Deep sea sponge aggregations, offshore deep sea muds, offshore subtidal sands and gravels, continental slope.

Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - prograding wedge; Submarine Mass Movement - slide deposits; Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Deep Ocean Seabed- countourite sand/silt; Cenozoic structures of the Atlantic Margin - mud diapirs.

Site Description
The North-east Faroe-Shetland Channel is a large offshore site situated to the north-east of the Shetland Islands towards the boundary of the MPA Project Area and the UK continental shelf, and within OSPAR Regions I & II.
Summary of confidence in presence, extent and condition of proposed protected features and conservation objectives
Proposed Protected Feature Estimated Area of Feature (by scenario) (km 2) Confidence in
Feature Presence
Confidence in
Feature Extent
Confidence in
Feature Condition
Conservation Objective and Risk
Biodiversity Features
Deep sea sponge aggregations Lower: 152.59
Intermediate: 152.59
Upper: 2221.75
Yes (survey data, 2006) Yes - assumes no disturbance since 2006; modelling suggests proposal encompasses feature extent Low Conserve (uncertain)
Offshore deep sea muds All scenarios: 17761.43 Yes ( UK SeaMap, 2010; AFEN & SEA surveys, 1996 - 2006) Yes - good number, distribution and age of evidence Low Conserve (uncertain)
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels All scenarios: 9183.99 Yes ( UK SeaMap, 2010; AFEN & SEA surveys, 1996 - 2006) Yes - good number, distribution and age of evidence Low Conserve (uncertain)
Continental slope Yes ( UK SeaMap, 2010) Partial Low Conserve (uncertain)
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - prograding wedge 14926.93 Yes Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Submarine Mass Movement - slide deposits 9738.78 Yes Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Deep Ocean Seabed - countourite sand/silt 2159.53 Yes Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Cenozoic structures of the Atlantic Margin - mud diapirs 161.89 Yes Yes Low Conserve (uncertain)
Key: * Estimated area based on best available data
References:
Area of Features: GeMS
Confidence in biodiversity feature presence and extent: JNCC (2013) pers. comm.
Confidence in biodiversity feature condition: JNCC (2013) pers. comm.
Confidence in geodiversity feature presence and extent: Brooks et al. (2012)
Confidence in geodiversity feature condition: Brooks et al. (2012)

Summary of Costs and Benefits

Table 2a. Site-Specific Economic Costs on Human Activities arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (present value of total costs over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ NEF]
Human Activity Cost Impact on Activity
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Economic Costs (Discounted)
Commercial Fisheries* 0.046 1.661 4.302
Oil and Gas 0.438 0.438 37.618
Total Quantified Economic Costs 0.484 2.099 41.920
Non-Quantified Economic Costs
Commercial Fisheries
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
  • Displacement impacts.
  • Loss of value of catches from Non- UK vessels; and
  • Displacement impacts.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels; and
  • Displacement impacts.
Oil and Gas
  • Costs of mitigation measures;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of mitigation measures;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of mitigation measures;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
Note: For detailed information on economic cost impacts on activities, see Table 4.
* These estimates (present value of total change in GVA) assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.
Table 2b. Site-Specific Public Sector Costs arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ NEF]
Description Public Sector Costs
Lower Estimate (£Million) Intermediate Estimate (£Million) Upper Estimate (£Million)
Quantified Public Sector Costs (Discounted)
Preparation of Marine Management Schemes None None None
Preparation of Statutory Instruments 0.005 0.005 0.005
Development of voluntary measures National assessment National assessment National assessment
Site monitoring National assessment National assessment National assessment
Compliance and enforcement National assessment National assessment National assessment
Promotion of public understanding National assessment National assessment National assessment
Regulatory and advisory costs associated with licensing decisions 0.049 0.049 0.049
Total Quantified Public Sector Costs 0.054 0.054 0.054
Non-Quantified Public Sector Costs
None identified.
Table 2c. Summary of Social Impacts and Distribution of Quantified Impacts arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ NEF]
Key Areas of Social Impact Description Scale of Expected Impact across Scenarios, Average (mean no. of jobs affected) Distributional Analysis
Location Fishing Groups Predominantly Affected Social Groups Affected
Region Port Rural/ Urban/ Island Gear Types Most Affected Vessels most affected Crofters Ethnic minorities With disability or long term sick
Employment with consequent impacts on: Health, Crime, Environment, and Culture and Heritage Commercial fisheries - Loss of jobs (direct and indirect) Lower: 0 jobs
Intermediate: 3 jobs
Upper: 6 jobs
North East
North
Fraserburgh
Kirkwall
Impacts concentrated in rural, urban and island areas Cannot be identified for confidentiality reasons. Lower: <15m
Upper: >15m
No Impact. No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin. Unlikely to be employed in fisheries.
If any oil and gas developments do not proceed as a result of designation (due to additional costs, project delays, loss of investor confidence), there may be significant social impacts due to job losses (non-quantified).
Note: For detailed information on socio-economic impacts by sector, see Table 7a. For more detailed information on distributional impacts of quantified costs by sector see Tables 7b and 7c.
Table 2d. Site-Specific Benefits arising from the Designation and Management of the Site as an MPA (over 2014 to 2033 inclusive) [ NEF]
Benefit Description
Ecosystem Services Benefits (Moderate and High Benefits) Relevance Scale of Benefits
Non-use value of natural environment Nil - Low Low - Moderate
Other Benefits
None identified.
Note: For detailed information on ecosystem services benefits, see Tables 9 and 10. For detailed information on other benefits, see Table 5 (activities that would benefit) and Table 8 (contribution to ecologically-coherent network).

Summary of Overlaps and Interactions between Proposed Designated Features and Human Activities

Table 3. Overlaps and Potential Interactions between Features and Activities under different Scenarios, indicating need for Assessment of Cost Impacts on Human Activities from Designation of the Site as an MPA [ NEF]
Aggregates Aquaculture (Finfish) Aquaculture (Shellfish) Aviation Carbon Capture & Storage Coastal Protection Commercial Fisheries Energy Generation Military Activities Oil & Gas Ports & Harbours Power Interconnectors Recreational Boating Shipping Telecom Cables Tourism Water Sports
Biodiversity Features
Deep sea sponge aggregations - - - - - - L/I/U - - L/I/U - - - - - - -
Offshore deep sea muds - - - - - - L/ I/U - - L/I/U - - - - L/I/U - -
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels - - - - - - L/ I/U - - L/I/U - - - - L/I/U - -
Continental slope Not considered as not thought to be sensitive to pressures associated with human activity.
Geodiversity Features
Quaternary of Scotland - prograding wedge Not considered as thought to have a low sensitivity/not be exposed to pressures associated with human activity and also considered from a geodiversity context.
Submarine Mass Movement - slide deposits
Marine Geomorphology of the Scottish Deep Ocean Seabed - countourite sand/silt
Cenozoic structures of the Atlantic Margin - mud diapirs
Note: L = Lower Scenario; I = Intermediate Scenario; U = Upper Scenario. Normal font indicates that there is an overlap between the activity and proposed protected feature under that scenario, bold indicates that the overlap results in a potential interaction between the activity and proposed protected feature that has resulted in cost impacts under that scenario. For detail of management measures assessed under each scenario for each activity, and results of the cost estimates, see Table 4.

Human Activity Summaries

Human activities that would be impacted by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 4a. Commercial Fisheries (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) [ NEF]

According to VMS-based estimates and ICES rectangle landings statistics, whitefish trawls and nets (over-15m) and whitefish trawls, pelagic trawls, nets and lines (under-15m vessels) operate within the NEF proposed MPA. The value of catches from the NEF area for over-15m vessels ( VMS data) cannot be disclosed as there were fewer than 5 vessels. The value of catches for under-15m vessels was £383,000 (indicated from ICES rectangle landings data) (annual average for 2007-2011, 2012 prices). Landings from the over-15m fleet are predominantly into Scrabster (36% by value), Kinlochbervie (24%), Ullapool (12%), Peterhead (11%) and Corunna, Spain (7%). For the over-15m fleet, trawlers operate in particular along the southern edge of the proposed MPA (along the continental shelf) across the area of deep sea sponge aggregations, and also line fishing occurs in the eastern corner in the area of subtidal sands and gravels.

Non- UK VMS ping data indicate that 106 foreign vessels were active in the NEF area in 2012: 78 from Norway; 8 from the Faroe Islands; 8 from Germany; 7 from France; 2 from Spain; and 1 from each of Greenland, Ireland and the Netherlands. 3 French, 5 German and 2 Spanish vessels fish with bottom trawl and therefore would be affected by management measures under all three scenarios. 2 German vessels fish with lines and may be affected under the upper scenario. The Dutch vessel fishes with pelagic trawl and therefore would not be affected by the management scenarios. No information on gear types used by the Norwegian, Irish, Faroe Islands or Greenland vessels was available.

Information submitted by the French ministry indicated that 4 vessels fished in the proposed MPA area in 2011. They were predominantly demersal trawlers, with catches worth €0.013 million (in 2011). The vessels originated from Boulogne-sur-Mer and Guilvinec ports, but have their home ports at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Peterhead, Lochinver, Marbella, Hanstholm, Guilvinec and Boulmer. Less than 1% of their turnover is dependent on fishing in the proposed MPA area, and the vessels account for 48 FTE jobs on board.

Provisional ScotMap data coverage does not extend as far as Shetland, and therefore this data source does not provide any information on under-15m vessel activity in the NEF proposed MPA. The cost estimates for the under-15m sector may be overestimates, as the 'under-15m' length group in the ICES rectangle landings data may include cases where information on vessel length and/or administrative port is missing from landings returns.

Management measures for the scenarios have been developed based on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the features to the pressures caused by different gear types and based on JNCC recommendations. Additionally, a lower scenario which excludes mobile bottom contact gear, but not static gear, on deep-sea sponge aggregations has also been included.

Unlike most other sectors, the potential cost of designation on commercial fisheries is a loss or displacement of current (and future) output, caused by restrictions on fishing activities. Any decrease in output will, all else being equal, reduce the Gross Value Added ( GVA) generated by the sector and have knock-on effects on the GVA generated by those industries that supply commercial fishing vessels. The costs estimates for this sector have therefore been estimated in terms of GVA.

GVA estimates have been generated by applying fleet segment-specific 'GVA/total income' ratios to the value of landings affected. The GVA ratios have been calculated using data on total income and GVA from the Sea Fish Industry Authority Multi-year Fleet Economic Performance Dataset (published March 2013). Further details on the GVA ratios and the methodology for estimating GVA and employment impacts applied are presented in Appendix C7.

It is important to note that all costs presented below assume that all affected landings are lost, that is, there is no displacement of fishing activity to alternative fishing grounds. In reality, some displacement is likely to occur and hence the cost, GVA and employment impacts presented in this table are likely to overestimate the costs.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Closure to mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across the deep sea sponge feature extent.
  • Reduce mobile bottom-contact gear (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) pressure by 50% across the offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds feature extents; and
  • Closure to all bottom contact gear (mobile and static) across deep sea sponge feature extent.
  • Closure to mobile bottom-contact gears (whitefish, nephrops and other trawls and seines, beam trawls and dredges) across 50% of the offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds feature extents; and
  • Closure to all bottom contact gear (mobile and static) across deep sea sponge feature extent (400-600m depth).
Description of one-off costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of recurring costs
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (0.005).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (0.088).
  • Loss of >15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (fewer than 5 vessels; value not presented).
  • Loss of <15m fishing income (annual values, £ million, 2012 prices):
  • All affected gears (0.225).
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (3 vessels), Germany (5 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
  • Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (3 vessels), Germany (5 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
  • Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.
  • Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (3 vessels), Germany (7 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)); and
  • Displacement effects, including conflict with other fishing vessels, environmental impacts in targeting new areas, longer steaming times and increased fuel costs, changes in costs and earnings, gear development and adaptation costs, and additional quota costs.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) * * *
Average annual costs * * *
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) * * *
Economic Impacts (£Million)
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.063 2.258 5.849
Average annual change to GVA 0.003 0.113 0.292
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) 0.046 1.661 4.302
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment 0.1 jobs 2.6 jobs 6.4 jobs
* Value for non- VMS vessels only. VMS data represents less than 5 vessels and therefore cannot be disclosed.
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Total change in GVA (2014-2033) = The change in direct GVA in the sector for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual change to GVA = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total change in GVA (2014-2033) = Total change in direct GVA in the sector for the site discounted to current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.
Direct and Indirect reduction in Employment = The average (mean) reduction in direct employment in the sector plus the indirect reduction in employment on the sector's suppliers.
Table 4b. Oil and Gas [ NEF]

There are 10 oil and gas wells that overlap with the proposed protected features within the NEF proposed MPA boundary. Three of these overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under the upper scenario. Four and six wells respectively overlap with offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios. One additional well is within 1km of with offshore subtidal sands and gravels under all scenarios.

A total of 50 licence awards granted under the 26 th and 27th UK oil and gas licensing rounds overlap with features proposed for designation within the NEF proposed MPA boundary. Of the 50 awards, 27 were awarded in the 26 th round and 23 in the 27 th round. Feature extents show that under all scenarios all 27 of the 26 th round awards overlap with offshore deep sea muds, and 8 overlap with offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Of the 27 th round awards, 13 and 15 of the awarded blocks overlap with feature extents for offshore deep sea muds and offshore subtidal sands and gravels respectively (under all scenarios). Two of the 27 th round awards overlap with deep sea sponge aggregations under all scenarios and seven under the upper scenario only. Twenty-five of the awards from the 26 th round and 14 from the 27 th round lie wholly within the MPA proposal, while the rest overlap the MPA proposal boundary.

One of the licence blocks awarded in the 27 th round contains a significant gas discovery.

Economic Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA
Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
Assumptions for cost impacts
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards);
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of reduced sponge density, drawing on data held by JNCC and collected by operators ; and
  • Treat cuttings that use oil-based muds on site.
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards);
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of reduced sponge density, drawing on data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
  • Treat cuttings that use oil-based muds on site.
  • Additional costs to assess potential impacts to MPA features for 26 th and 27 th licensing awards that overlap with MPA features - Assessment Phases 1 - 3 if no significant discoveries present within award or Assessment and Development Phases 1 - 6 if significant discoveries present (only Phases 2 - 6 anticipated for 26 th round awards);
  • Minimising alterations to seabed habitat; any deposited material should meet local habitat type;
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas outside of the area of deep sea sponge aggregations (the 400-600m depth contours);
  • Micro-siting of infrastructure in areas of more representative habitat types for offshore subtidal sands and gravels and offshore deep sea muds using data held by JNCC and collected by operators; and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings.
Description of one-off costs
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024)); and
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024)); and
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024)).
  • Assessment Phase 1: surveys and evaluation costs; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £2k per well (28 wells (2016) and 22 wells (2018));
  • Assessment Phase 2: drilling and exploration; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Assessment Phase 3: drilling and appraisal; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (28 wells (2018) and 22 wells (2020));
  • Development Phase 4: development; consultancy fees and additional operator staff input - £4k per well (1 well (2024));
  • Operation and Production Phase 5: annual permits, consultancy fees, additional operator staff input - £20k per well (1 well (2024));
  • Maintenance Phase 6: consultancy fees; additional operator staff input - £2k per well (1 well (2024));
  • Micro-siting survey costs - £230k per well (28 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 1 well (2024));
  • Re-routing of new pipelines for Phases 4 - 6 - £2m per additional km of pipeline (10% of distance, 1 well (2024));
  • Survey costs for additional pipeline length - £580k per well (1 well (2024)); and
  • Skip and ship drill cuttings - £650k per well (28 wells (2018), 20 wells (2020) and 1 well (2024)).
Description of recurring costs
  • None.
  • None.
  • None.
Description of non-quantified costs
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
  • Costs of some mitigation measures should be covered by industry best practice;
  • Costs of project delays during consenting; risk of deterrent to investment; and
  • Future decommissioning costs assessed at national level.
Quantified Costs on the Activity of Designation of the Site as an MPA (£Million)
Total costs (2014-2033) 0.513 0.513 44.713
Average annual costs 0.026 0.026 2.236
Present value of total costs (2014-2033) 0.438 0.438 37.618
Total costs = Sum of one-off costs and recurring costs for the site summed over the 20 year period.
Average annual costs = Total costs divided by the total number of years under analysis ( i.e. 20).
Present value of total costs = Total costs discounted to their current value, using a discount rate of 3.5%.

Human activities that would benefit from designation of the site as an MPA

Table 5. Human Activities that would Benefit from Designation of the Site as an MPA [ NEF]
Activity Lower Estimate Intermediate Estimate Upper Estimate
None identified.

Human activities that are present but which would be unaffected by designation of the site as an MPA

Table 6. Human Activities that are Present but which would be Unaffected by Designation of the Site as an MPA [ NEF]
Activity Description
Telecom Cables Two operational telecom cables (DANICE Seg. 1 (in operation since 2008); FARICE(2) (in operation since 2004)) and one disused cable (CANTAT 3 FC3) overlap with offshore deep sea muds (all scenarios) and offshore subtidal sands and gravels (all scenarios) within the NEF proposed MPA boundary. However, no cost impacts are foreseen as the site is located beyond the 12 nautical mile threshold (within which licences are required for cables).

Social and Distributional Analysis of Impacts from Designation of the Site as an MPA

Table 7a. Social Impacts Associated with Quantified and Non-Quantified Economic Costs [ NEF]
Sector Potential Economic Impacts Economic Costs and GVA ( PV) Area of Social Impact Affected Mitigation Significance of Social impact
Commercial Fisheries Loss of traditional fishing grounds with consequent loss in landings, value of landings and hence GVA Annual Average Loss in Value of Landings:
Cannot be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

Annual Average Loss in GVA (direct and indirect)*:
Lower: <£0.01m
Intermediate: £0.11m
Upper: £0.29m
Culture and heritage - impact on traditions from loss of fishing grounds. Health: xx (for individuals affected who do not find alternative employment)
If the loss in GVA significant enough, risk of job losses (direct and indirect) Job Losses*:
Lower: 0.1 jobs
Intermediate: 2.6 jobs
Upper: 6.4 jobs
A reduction in employment can generate a wide range of social impacts which, in turn, can generate a range of short and long term costs for wider society and the public purse:
  • Healt h (increase in illness, mental stress, loss of self esteem
and risk of depression);
  • Increase in crime; and
  • Reduction in f u ture emp lo y me n t prospects/future earnings.
Support to retrain those affected and for the promotion of new small businesses in fisheries dependent areas.
Loss of value of catches from non- UK vessels using bottom contact gears in the proposed MPA (France (3 vessels), Germany (7 vessels), Spain (2 vessels), and possibly Norway (78 vessels), Ireland (1 vessel), Greenland (1 vessel) and Faroe Islands (1 vessel)) Not quantified Employment - loss of foreign jobs from reduced landings.
Displacement Effects Not quantified Quantified impact on jobs assume worst case scenario ( i.e. no redistribution of effort). In reality displacement effects likely to occur with socio-economic consequences:
  • Empl o y m e nt - reduced employment due to changes in costs and earnings profile of vessels ( e.g. increased fuel costs, gear development and adaption costs, additional quota costs);
  • Conflict/Loss of social cohesion - diminishing fishing grounds may increase conflict with other vessels/gear types, increase social tensions within fishing communities and lead to a loss of social cohesion among fleets. Could also lead to increased operating costs as a result of lost or damaged gear. Equally, gear conflict could reduce where gears are restricted/prohibited;
  • Healt h - increased risks to the safety of fishers and vessels and increased stress due to moving to lesser known areas;
  • E n v ironmental - increased impact in targeting new areas, longer streaming times and increased fuel consumption; and
  • Cul t ur e a nd her i tag e - change in traditional fishing patterns/ activities.
xx
Oil and Gas Additional operational costs associated with licence and permit applications for new exploration development and decommissioning Quantified Cost Impact (2014-2033): £0.438 - 37.618m Decommissioning assessed at national level Future employment opportunities - reduced future employment opportunities if increased costs affect the economic viability of projects and lead to some projects not proceeding. xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Additional mitigation measures for new developments or decommissioning activities to support achievement of site conservation objectives Not Quantified

Future employment opportunities - reduced future employment opportunities if costs significant and render development projects unviable.

This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.

xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Costs associated with delays during the licensing and permitting process. Loss of investor confidence (developments do not proceed) Not Quantified

Employment - reduced future employment opportunities if delays deter investments.

This impact is uncertain and is only likely to arise under the upper scenario. JNCC's current advice is that the intermediate scenario represents their best view on management requirements.

xxx (under the upper scenario only)
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
* These estimates assume zero displacement of fishing activity and hence are likely to overestimate the costs.
Table 7b. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Location, Age and Gender [ NEF]
Sector/Impact Location Age Gender
Region Ports* Rural, Urban, Coastal or Island Children Working Age Pensionable Age Male Female

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

xx

North
North-East
Nort-West
West (and Newlyn)

xx

Largest employment impacts in:

Fraserburgh (72%), Kirkwall (22%)

xx

Coastal and Island

Urban and Rural

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if parent loses job/becomes unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if individuals lose job/become unemployed.

xx

Potential negative effect if retirees own affected vessels or live in households affected by unemployment.

xxx

0.1-6 job losses

Potentially significant negative effect on individuals that lose job/become unemployed.

xxx

Potentially significant negative effect if member of household loses job/becomes unemployed.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

x

North
North-West
North East

x

Scrabster
Kinlochbervie
Peterhead
Ullapool
Fraserburgh
Lerwick
Marin

x

Coastal and Island

Urban and Rural

xx xx xx 0 xx
Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
* Based on value of landings by home port affected under intermediate scenario.
Table 7c. Distribution of Quantified Economic Costs for Commercial Fisheries and Fish Processors (assuming zero displacement of fishing activity) - Fishing Groups, Income Groups and Social Groups [ NEF]
Sector/Impact Fishing Groups Income Groups Social Groups
Vessel Category <15m >15m* Gear Types/Sector* 10% Most Deprived Middle 80% 10% Most Affluent Crofters Ethnic minorities With Disability or Long-term Sick

Commercial Fisheries

Reduction in landed value, GVA and employment

Lower: <15m
Upper: >15m
Cannot be identified for confidentiality reasons. xx xx

x

Information only available on average incomes not the distribution of income. Therefore, not clear whether this group will be affected.

0 No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Fish Processors

Reduction in local landings at landing ports

Shellfish: x
Demersal: xxx
Pelagic: 0
xx xx 0 0 No breakdown of fisherman employment by ethnic origin.

0

No employment data but unlikely to be employed in fisheries.

Impacts: xxx - significant negative effect; xx - possible negative effects; x - minimal negative effect, if any; 0 - no noticeable effect expected.
* Based on costs to gear types/sectors and vessel categories affected under the intermediate scenario

Potential Contribution of the Site to an Ecologically-Coherent Network

Table 8. Overview of Features Proposed for Designation and how these contribute to an Ecologically Coherent Network of MPAs [ NEF]
Feature Name Representation Replication Linkages Geographic Range
and Variation
Resilience
Deep sea sponge aggregations Provides representation for deep sea sponge aggregations in OSPAR Region II. Provides one of at least three recommended examples to be protected in Scotland's seas. Not currently understood for deep sea sponge aggregations. Provides representation of an ecologically distinct type of deep sea sponge aggregation - aggregations of Boreal Ostur. This type of deep sea sponge aggregation to date has only recorded in the Faroe-Shetland Channel in Scotland's seas. Deep sea sponge aggregations are considered to be Threatened and/or Declining by the OSPAR Commission in OSPAR Region II so the MPA is expected to help increase resilience for the feature.
Offshore deep sea muds Provides representation for large areas of Arctic and smaller areas of Atlantic influenced slope and off-shelf offshore deep-sea mud habitats predominantly in OSPAR Region I, but also to a lesser extent in OSPAR Region II It represents one of at least two recommended examples of Atlantic and Arctic influenced slope and off-shelf, offshore, deep-sea mud habitats to be protected in OSPAR Regions I and II. Not currently understood for offshore deep sea muds. Provides representation at the north-eastern extent of its range on the continental slope and off the shelf in OSPAR Regions I & II in Scotland's seas and one of the only areas of Arctic influenced offshore deep sea muds in Scotland's seas and across the UK. Offshore deep sea muds are fairly widely recorded across offshore waters in Scotland's seas.
Offshore subtidal sands and gravels Provides representation for Arctic and Atlantic influenced continental slope and off-shelf offshore subtidal sand and gravel habitats in OSPAR Regions I and II. Represents one of at least two recommended examples of Atlantic and Arctic influenced slope and off-shelf, offshore, subtidal sand and gravel habitats to be protected in OSPAR Regions I and II. Not currently understood for offshore subtidal sands and gravels. Provides representation at the north-eastern extent of its range on the continental slope and off the shelf in OSPAR Regions I & II in Scotland's seas. Offshore subtidal sands and gravels are fairly widely recorded across offshore waters in Scotland's seas.
Continental slope The possible MPA provides representation for one of two recommended areas of the Scottish continental slope to be included within the MPA network. The Faroe-Shetland Channel slope is considered ecologically and hydrographically distinct to the Hebridean slope and so the recommendation is for at least one example of each area of the slope to be included. Not currently understood for the continental slope. The Faroe-Shetland Channel slope is considered ecologically and hydrographically distinct to the Hebridean slope. This possible MPA represents one example of the Faroe-Shetland Channel slope. The continental slope occurs between Scotland's shelf and off-shelf environment.
JNCC (pers. comm.); SNH and JNCC. (2012). Assessment of the potential adequacy of the Scottish MPA network for MPA search features: summary of the application of the stage 5 selection guidelines.
Available online from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marine-environment/mpanetwork/engagement/270612.

Anticipated Benefits to Ecosystem Services

Table 9. Summary of Ecosystem Services Benefits arising from Designation of the Site as an MPA [26] [ NEF]
Services Relevance
to Site
Baseline Level Estimated Impacts of Designation Value Weighting Scale of Benefits Confidence
Lower Intermediate Upper
Fish for human consumption Low - Moderate Stocks not at MSY Minimal - unclear of deep sea sponge gives provisioning or supporting services Low - allows recovery of stocks in medium/long term. Features provide moderate level of supporting services to support recovery Moderate Low Moderate
Fish for non-human consumption Stocks reduced from potential maximum
Gas and climate regulation Nil - Low Nil - Low Nil, or at best a very low level of protection of parts of ecosystem providing these services Low Nil - Low High
Natural hazard protection Nil - Low Nil - Low Low Nil - Low High
Regulation of pollution Nil - Low Nil - Low Low Nil - Low High
Non-use value of natural environment Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Nil - Low Low Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Low - Moderate Low
Recreation Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal Minimal Moderate
Research and Education Low - features protected of research interest. Minimal Minimal - Low Low Low Low Low Low
Total value of changes in ecosystem services Change in values are dominated by those services that support fish, this is only present for intermediate and upper scenarios. Moderate Moderate

Human Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Northeast Faroe Shetland Channel

Fishing Activities which Occur within the Proposed MPA Northeast Faroe Shetland Channel

Contact

Back to top